Opinion
Civil Action No. 19-cv-02104-CMA-NRN
05-06-2020
SATCOM SOLUTION AND RESOURCES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. FRED POPE, SATCOM RESOURCES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and 6SOLE INC, a Colorado corporation, Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE GORDON P. GALLAGHER
This matter is before the Court on the April 20, 2020 Recommendation (Doc. # 38) by United States Magistrate Judge Gordon P. Gallagher, wherein he recommends that Defendants Fred Pope, Satcom Resources LLC, and 6Sole Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) should be granted in part and denied in part. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (Doc. # 38 at 1 n.2.) Despite this advisement, no objections to Magistrate Judge Gallagher's Recommendation have been filed by either party.
"[T]he district court is accorded considerable discretion with respect to the treatment of unchallenged magistrate reports. In the absence of timely objection, the district court may review a magistrate [judge's] report under any standard it deems appropriate." Summers v. Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167 (10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985) (stating that "[i]t does not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate's factual or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to those findings.")).
After reviewing the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Gallagher, in addition to applicable portions of the record and relevant legal authority, the Court is satisfied that the Recommendation is sound and not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: • The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Gordon P. Gallagher (Doc. # 38) is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED as an Order of this Court; • Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Specifically:
? Plaintiff's First and Fourth Causes of Action may proceed against Defendants Pope and Sole6. Plaintiff's First and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendant Satcom Resources are dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
? Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action against Defendant Pope is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
? Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action against Defendants Pope and 6Sole may proceed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2), 1030(a)(4), 1030(a)(5), and
1030(g). Plaintiff's Third Cause of Action is dismissed against Defendant Satcom Resources under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2), 1030(a)(4), 1030(a)(5), 1030(a)(6)(A), 1030(b), and 1030(g) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);• In summary, the following claims remain pending: the First and Fourth Causes of Action against Defendants Pope and Sole6; the Third Cause of Action against Defendants Pope and 6Sole pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2), 1030(a)(4), 1030(a)(5), and 1030(g); the Fifth Cause of Action under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4- 405 against Defendants Pope and 6Sole; the Seventh Cause of Action against Defendant Pope; the Eighth Cause of Action against Satcom Resources; and the Tenth Cause of Action against Defendant Pope regarding the nonpayment of $87,862.90.
? Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-408 is dismissed against all Defendants for lack of standing. Plaintiff's Fifth Cause of Action under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-4-405 may proceed against Defendants Pope and 6Sole but is dismissed against Defendant Satcom Resources pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
? Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action against Defendants Pope and Satcom Resources is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
? Plaintiff's Seventh Cause of Action may proceed against Defendant Pope;
? Plaintiff's Eighth Cause of Action may proceed against Satcom Resources but is dismissed against Defendant Pope pursuant to the economic loss rule;
? Plaintiff's Ninth Cause of Action against Defendants Pope and Satcom Resources is dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6);
? Plaintiff's Tenth Cause of Action against Defendant Pope may proceed regarding the nonpayment of $87,862.90 but is dismissed against Defendant Pope on the remaining claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
DATED: May 6, 2020
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge